Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Why should x be 0? As far as I see, it's unitialized.
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 2 Sep 2013 at 8:57
my fault, the initial test case is broken. But the problem remains.
Here is another test case:
% cat ~/tmp/racy_uar.cc
#include <pthread.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
long *g;
int idx = 7;
pthread_t t;
void NeverCalled() {
printf("I can never be called!!!!\n");
}
void *Thread(void*) {
sleep(1);
assert(g);
*g = (long)&NeverCalled;
printf("Thread: %p %lx\n", g, *g);
return 0;
}
void foo() {
long x[10] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};
g = &x[idx];
printf("x : %p %lx\n", g, *g);
pthread_create(&t, 0, Thread, 0);
}
__attribute__((noinline)) void call4() {
long local;
sleep(2);
printf("call4 : %p\n", &local);
}
__attribute__((noinline)) void call3() {
long local;
printf("call3 : %p\n", &local);
call4();
}
__attribute__((noinline)) void call2() {
long local;
printf("call2 : %p\n", &local);
call3();
}
__attribute__((noinline)) void call1() {
long local;
printf("call1 : %p\n", &local);
call2();
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
foo();
call1();
}
% clang++ -g -fPIE -pie -O1 -fsanitize=thread ~/tmp/racy_uar.cc -lpthread ;
./a.out
x : 0x7fff6c9b3e98 7
call1 : 0x7fff6c9b3ec0
call2 : 0x7fff6c9b3eb0
call3 : 0x7fff6c9b3ea0
Thread: 0x7fff6c9b3e98 7f1aee5703d0
call4 : 0x7fff6c9b3e90
I can never be called!!!!
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 2 Sep 2013 at 9:43
Attachments:
OK, this looks valid.
I think we do not want to quarantine stack frames as in asan use-after-return,
because of the additional memory consumption. Right?
We can make read/write of return address visible to tsan. And additionally
emulate writes to addressable stack vars, when they go out of scope.
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 2 Sep 2013 at 2:37
Unassigning from myself as this requires some llvm expertise. CCing more llvm
experts.
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 2 Sep 2014 at 2:26
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
konstant...@gmail.com
on 2 Sep 2013 at 8:46